Study fails to account for the particulate crap and road wear (not to mention fatal fires) that the transportation of vehicle fuel causes. Extracting and refining oil and bringing it to market is not a clean process. Just ask the people of Lac-Mégantic Canada where a 74 car train of crude oil derailed and burned the place down.

- most of the emissions are said to come from "resuspension", i.e. grinding stuff down and kicking up crap; the big question is "Where's the crap from?"
- how did they get the exhaust emissions figures? (I hope it wasn't using vehicle emission ratings, because we know that's junk.)
- It's important to look beyond the headline - EVs will help lower PM2.5 emissions.

But, a very interesting study that gives another reason to continue to push to improve densities.

It sounds like this group using so-called 'studies' would relegate us to the late 1600's, when oxen pulling wooden-wheeled carts would certainly emit more methane, road poop, and fine particles of wood splintering off the cart's wheels.... Some people have way too much time on their hands. But amusing none-the-less.

I'm not sure I understand the motivation for this study, apart from creating another anti-EV propaganda tool.

The truth is that, with modern gasoline vehicles, particulate emissions are not the primary concern. Carbon monoxide and other gaseous emissions are bigger concerns for local air quality, not to mention carbon dioxide emissions and their role in global warming. Particulates are definitely an issue with diesel vehicles, of course.

You can leave an EV "running" indefinitely in a closed garage and not die of asphyxiation. So what was that about conventional vehicles, again?

Hmm... average 25% heavier for EVs and the vast majority of the PM10 emissions shown are "resuspension" of road dust.

So in other words, the stuff on the road already... which can easily be kicked up by weather is the vast majority of the issue here. Really not sure how they are saying that the stuff in the asphalt you kick up is mainly zinc, copper, iron, and lead. More likely they are conflating some stuff together and we get nonsense coming out. If you take out the resuspension oddity, EV's are a big win, but they didn't take into account PM emissions from electricity production.

Of course, the actual emissions from gasoline and diesel is apparently far worse in operation than the official figures suggest.

Typically, the trade off with EVs has been higher PM emissions for lower GHG emissions. On the face of it, this study claims that EVs gives us even PM emissions while achieving lower GHG emissions. Well no, this study isn't comprehensive enough to really get a good picture. Not sure this study has any actual worth.

So in other words, the stuff on the road already... which can easily be kicked up by weather is the vast majority of the issue here. Really not sure how they are saying that the stuff in the asphalt you kick up is mainly zinc, copper, iron, and lead. More likely they are conflating some stuff together and we get nonsense coming out.

Click to expand...

Ya, can you imagine how much more those oxen drawn carts will be kicking up? The sky is falling.....

While I am all in favor of reading about scientific research into all aspects of air pollution, I suspect that reading this article in isolation is not very helpful. I worked in air pollution control for a short time many years ago, and learned just enough to recognize that this article is addressing only one part of a complex picture. E.g., it is not trying to characterize all emissions, only the respirable portion of particulates -- so, not CO or CO2 or the constituents of "smog." Without knowing what other attempts have been made to measure this component of air pollution, it is probably not possible for most of us to judge its value. Certainly I cannot.
Not only that, but the article in Green Car Congress is itself only a summary of the actual study report, so the summary itself may be flawed and is likely not detailed enough to address every question we might have.
So, I would caution against reaching many conclusions, positive or negative, about the value of the study of its implications about EVs...

Studies like this are only the tip of the iceberg. I'm sure big oil has a war chest of gold to belittle and denigrate the upcoming and exponential growth of EV vehicles. If you're into ICE vehicles and more pollution, your future of cheap gasoline or diesel is secure, at least for the short term.

In my view, this is nonsense and disinformation. Let's stop dignifying this with any further attention. Regenerative braking in electric cars greatly reduces friction brake usage (there is no comparison between the brake dust from electric vs gas cars). The low coefficient of drag (look at the underside of a Tesla relative to any gas car) also means that there will be less disturbance of air by a Tesla relative to a gas car of comparable weight. Trucks cause an order of magnitude more disturbance (due to weight, frontal area and coefficient of drag). More importantly, not including CO2, NOX, soot, and the other exhaust components makes this both incorrect and irrelevant for public policy purposes. Such emissions from diesels include (from Wikipedia):

It might be asking too much for people to objectively evaluate scientific research, but we should try.

The thing with science is you can't just accept the results you want and dismiss the ones you don't. EVs are not entirely emission-free. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Let's try and avoid the conspiracy ideation.

I love to read article about new studies done by independent companies - it just makes me feel I am not wasting my time.

INNAS BV: gained an international reputation by innovative developments in the field of hydraulic components, hydraulic drives and combustion engines. My guess is that they want or have contract with Hoerbiger.